Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Priority is being given back to 02/16/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/27/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments filed on 08/12/2025.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1 and 15 are currently amended.
Claim 4 is cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10-15 are currently rejected.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light to the amendments to claim 15, the 112d rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the art rejections have been considered and are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the subject matter of cancelled claim 4 which was primarily rejected to Binder. Applicant argues that Binder does not teach “determining that a front wheel speed of the vehicle is greater than a preset reference front wheel speed”. Given a known gearing of the vehicle, knowing the engine speed is above a threshold speed would directly correspond to the wheel speed being above a threshold speed. Converting between engine speed and wheel speed knowing the gearing ratio would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Seo is also mapped to this limitation and explicitly using the wheel speed to determine an acceleration condition. Applicant also appears to argue the other steps of fig. 2 however the mappings of Binder correspond to the determinations made in the S4 step. The rejections are maintained in the updated rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (KR 20160142519), herein “Seo” in view of Barber et. al. (US 2018/0170331), herein “Barber”, Hara et. al. (US 2020/0108810), herein “Hara ‘810”, Wu et. al. (US 2012/0280562), herein “Wu”, Narita et. al. (US 2007/0024114), herein “Narita”, Matsuno et. al. (GB 2297633), herein “Matsuno”, Khajepour et. al. (US 2017/0267232), herein “Khajepour”, and Binder et. al. (DE 102013107781 A1), herein “Binder”.
Seo teaches:
A method of controlling a brake (a control method of a vehicle posture control apparatus that provides a brake pressure to an inner wheel of a turning pivot during acceleration of a vehicle [abstract]), the method comprising:
determining, by the ESC device, whether execution conditions for brake control of a turning inner wheel of a vehicle to prevent wheel slip are satisfied (When the yaw rate error satisfies the TVBB yaw rate error condition less than the TVBB threshold value, the electronic control unit 10 determines whether or not the TVBB control is permitted according to the lateral acceleration and the wheel slip of the turning inner wheel, and starts the TVBB control according to the determination result [page 5]; After detecting the wheel speed information and the steering angle information, the electronic control unit 10 determines (104) whether the vehicle is accelerating in the operating mode 104 based on the detected wheel speed information and the steering angle information. [fig. 6; page 6-7]; In the operating mode 110, the electronic control unit 10 compares the reference yaw rate with the actual yaw rate to determine whether the reference yaw rate exceeds the actual yaw rate (110). [fig. 6; page 7]; In the operation mode 118, the electronic control unit 10 compares the detected lateral acceleration Ad with a predetermined value Aref to determine whether the detected lateral acceleration Ad is equal to or greater than a predetermined value Aref (118) [fig. 6; page 7]; After calculating the wheel slip of the turning inner wheel, the electronic control unit 10 calculates the wheel slip Sc and the wheel slip Smap corresponding to the lateral acceleration value detected in the operation mode 116 on the TVBB control allowable slip ratio map, And determines whether the calculated wheel slip Sc is equal to or greater than a wheel slip Smap corresponding to the lateral acceleration value. If the calculated wheel slip Sc is equal to or greater than the wheel slip (Smap) corresponding to the lateral acceleration value, the operation mode 120 is shifted to allow the TVBB control (120). [fig. 6; page 7]) in response to the function activation request (Examiner notes that traction control buttons are a common feature of cars that allow the user to turn on and off the ability of the ESC to perform traction control.); and
[only] when all of the execution conditions are satisfied (Determining whether a yaw rate error between the estimated reference yaw rate using the model and the actual yaw rate detected through the yaw rate sensor is greater than a preset threshold value and determining whether the yaw rate error is greater than the preset threshold value, And the wheel slip of the turning inner wheel to provide brake pressure to the turning inner wheel. [abstract]), controlling braking pressure by determining and adjusting a braking pressure control amount of the turning inner wheel (When the TVBB control entry is permitted, the TVBB operation is performed to apply the braking force to the inner wheel of the turning (e.g., the inner rear wheel of the turning) to perform the torque vectoring control (see FIG. 5). [mid-bot]) based on a preset factor (The hydraulic pressure regulator 60 regulates the pressure by increasing or decreasing the hydraulic pressure force supplied from the master cylinder MC to the wheel cylinders Wfr, Wrl, Wfl, Wrr in accordance with the control signal of the electronic control unit 10. [mid]),
wherein the execution conditions include a turning condition configured to determine whether the vehicle is turning (In the operating mode 110, the electronic control unit 10 compares the reference yaw rate with the actual yaw rate to determine whether the reference yaw rate exceeds the actual yaw rate (110). [fig. 6; page 7]; In the operation mode 118, the electronic control unit 10 compares the detected lateral acceleration Ad with a predetermined value Aref to determine whether the detected lateral acceleration Ad is equal to or greater than a predetermined value Aref (118) [fig. 6; page 7]), an acceleration condition configured to determine whether the vehicle accelerates (After detecting the wheel speed information and the steering angle information, the electronic control unit 10 determines (104) whether the vehicle is accelerating in the operating mode 104 based on the detected wheel speed information and the steering angle information. [fig. 6; page 6-7]), and a slip condition (After calculating the wheel slip of the turning inner wheel, the electronic control unit 10 calculates the wheel slip Sc and the wheel slip Smap corresponding to the lateral acceleration value detected in the operation mode 116 on the TVBB control allowable slip ratio map, And determines whether the calculated wheel slip Sc is equal to or greater than a wheel slip Smap corresponding to the lateral acceleration value. If the calculated wheel slip Sc is equal to or greater than the wheel slip (Smap) corresponding to the lateral acceleration value, the operation mode 120 is shifted to allow the TVBB control (120). [fig. 6; page 7])
in response to determining that at least one of a turning condition (fig. 6, step 110 and step 118), the acceleration condition (fig. 6, step 104), or the slip condition (fig. 6, step 124) is not satisfied in controlling of the braking pressure, terminating control of the braking pressure (fig. 6, step 126; the TVBB control is prohibited and prohibited (126). [page 7]),
wherein controlling of the braking pressure comprises calculating a target braking amount based on a target slip of the turning inner wheel (And providing the brake pressure to the wheel on the basis of the lateral acceleration of the vehicle and the wheel slip of the turning inner wheel [claims]; And a wheel slip map stored so that the lateral acceleration value and the wheel slip value as a boundary value for providing the brake pressure to the turning inner wheel correspond to each other, [claims])
Seo does not explicitly teach, however Barber teaches:
receiving, by an electronic stability control (ESC) device, a function activation request (if the vehicle 10 is equipped with electronic stability control (ESC), the ESC may also be shut off for the duration of the actuation of the switch 48. The controller 46 may also inform the driver of the vehicle 10, for example via a visual indicator on a vehicle instrument cluster (not shown), when eLSD 72 coupling and/or ESC shut-off has been enabled. [0039]);
in response to the function activation request (if the vehicle 10 is equipped with electronic stability control (ESC), the ESC may also be shut off for the duration of the actuation of the switch 48. [0039]);
wherein the acceleration condition is determined to be satisfied (After detecting the wheel speed information and the steering angle information, the electronic control unit 10 determines (104) whether the vehicle is accelerating in the operating mode 104 based on the detected wheel speed information and the steering angle information. [fig. 6; page 6-7]) in response to determining that a front wheel speed of the vehicle is greater than a preset reference front wheel speed (After detecting the wheel speed information and the steering angle information, the electronic control unit 10 determines (104) whether the vehicle is accelerating in the operating mode 104 based on the detected wheel speed information and the steering angle information. [fig. 6; page 6-7]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seo to include the teachings as taught by Barber with a reasonable expectation of success. Adding a physical switch or button to process and activation request is applying a known element according to known methods to yield a predictable result. Having a switch gate the ability to perform certain ESC controls allows the user to control and be aware of what type of braking response to expect. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Seo in view of Barber do not explicitly teach, however Hara ‘810 teaches:
configured to determine a wheel speed difference between the turning inner wheel and an outer wheel (the control amount of the inner front wheel is set in response to the slip ratio deviation the between the outer front wheel (reference wheel) and the inner front wheel (i.e., difference in the slip ratio between the reference wheel and the inner front wheel) [0069]; Slip ratio=((“wheel speed”−“vehicle body speed”)/“vehicle body speed”)×100(%) [0094]; examiner notes that the difference in inner and outer wheel speed is tied to the difference in slip ratio by the equation cited above.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seo in view of Barber to include the teachings as taught by Hara ‘810 with a reasonable expectation of success. Hara ‘810 teaches the benefit of “In order to use the whole or a part of the control amount for generating an anti-spin yaw moment on the inner front wheel for the control amount of the inner rear wheel, the brake ECU 50 corrects the slip ratio deviation of the inner front wheel and the slip ratio deviation of the inner rear wheel as follows. The brake ECU 50 adds the slip ratio deviation of the inner front wheel to the slip ratio deviation of the inner rear wheel, and then, sets the slip ratio deviation of the inner front wheel to zero. A control gain of the braking force generated on the front wheel with respect to the slip ratio deviation and a control gain of the braking force generated on the rear wheel with respect to the slip ratio deviation are different from each other. Therefore, the brake ECU 50 may correct the slip ratio deviation of the inner front wheel and the slip ratio deviation of the inner front wheel in view of those control gains. Each of the control gains is set to a value corresponding to the ground contact load of each wheel. [Hara ‘810, 0069]”
Seo in view of Barber and Hara ‘810 does not explicitly teach, however Wu teaches:
only when all of the execution conditions are satisfied (examiner notes that all of the three conditions are satisfied when the fuzzy logic determines the vehicle is in an unstable condition and actuates the braking profile.), controlling braking pressure by determining and adjusting a braking pressure control amount of the turning inner wheel based on a preset factor (consider a situation where the vehicle 100 is braking in a turn, and the vehicle 100 is decelerating from 20 m/s (.gamma.=0.5) at a relatively rapid wheel deceleration (V'12 m/s.sup.2), wheel jerk is moderate (V''.about.82 m/s3), wheel slip is moderate, vehicle yaw rate is relatively large (.PHI..about.5.4 rad/s), and vehicle lateral acceleration is large (Ay.about.7.7 m/s2), using the fuzzy operations, X1=0.3, X2=0.5, X3=0.6, X4=0.1, X5=0.2, and solving the equations above, yields Y1=0.35, Y2=0.4125, Y3=0.1781, and RB=0.1836. Therefore, FB=0.8164. Because the sensed parameters indicate that the vehicle 100 and the wheel are relatively unstable, 82% of the braking force is applied using friction braking and 18% is applied via regenerative braking. [0056]);
wherein the execution conditions include a turning condition configured to determine whether the vehicle is turning (a situation where the vehicle 100 is braking in a turn [0056]), an acceleration condition configured to determine whether the vehicle accelerates (and the vehicle 100 is decelerating from 20 m/s (.gamma.=0.5) at a relatively rapid wheel deceleration (V'12 m/s.sup.2), wheel jerk is moderate (V''.about.82 m/s3) [0056]), and a slip condition configured to determine a wheel speed difference between the turning inner wheel and an outer wheel (wheel slip is moderate [0056]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seo in view of Barber and Hara ‘810 to include the teachings as taught by Wu with a reasonable expectation of success. Wu teaches the benefit of “a controller for controlling braking of a wheel of a vehicle. The controller includes a first connection to a friction brake, a second connection to a motor/generator, a third connection to a plurality of sensors, and a fuzzy logic module. The motor/generator is configured to drive the wheel in a driving mode and to brake the wheel in a regenerative braking mode. Operating parameters of the vehicle are sensed by the plurality of sensors. The fuzzy logic module is configured to determine a stability of the vehicle and the wheel based on data from the plurality of sensors. The fuzzy logic module allocates braking force between the friction brake and the motor/generator operating in the regenerative braking mode based on the stability of the vehicle and the wheel. [Wu, 0004]”
Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, and Wu does not explicitly teach, however Narita teaches:
wherein controlling of the braking pressure (a braking force control system for a vehicle [0016]) comprises determining a target braking amount (controlling braking force [0016]) based on a target slip of the turning inner wheel (), a target wheel speed of the turning inner wheel (follows a target wheel speed thereof [0016]), and a current wheel speed of the turning inner wheel (an actual wheel speed of each rear wheel [0016]) during vehicle turning (the rear wheel have a different turning radius from that of the front wheel, therefore, there occurs an inevitable difference in rotation speed between the rear wheel and the front wheel, as well [0010]),
wherein the target wheel speed (The current target wheel speed TV.sub.RR(n) may be found, for example, by subtracting the target deceleration speed TG.sub.RR(n) that is set by the target wheel deceleration setting unit 25 from the previous target wheel speed TV.sub.RR(n-1) [0077]) is a smaller than the current driving speed of the vehicle by the current driving speed of the vehicle multiplied by the target slip (TG.sub.RR(n)=k.sub.1.times.G.sub.FR(n) [0049]; Where, k.sub.1 is a fixed number, and if k.sub.1=1, then the target deceleration speed TG.sub.RR(n) of the rear wheel R on the right side is equal to the actual deceleration speed G.sub.FR(n) of the front wheel F on the right side [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, and Wu to include the teachings as taught by Narita with a reasonable expectation of success. Narita teaches “if braking force is applied to both of a front wheel brake and a rear wheel brake of a four-wheel automotive vehicle or the like, that a center of gravity of the vehicle shifts forward and a vertical load of the rear wheels becomes smaller, so that the rear wheels are likely to be locked. To counter this problem, there has been proposed a braking force distribution method for providing proper distribution between braking force on the front wheels and braking force on the rear wheels, depending on load shifting due to load condition change or deceleration, whereby the brakes can stably work. [Narita, 0005-0006]”.
Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, and Narita does not explicitly teach, however Matsuno teaches:
wherein the target slip is determined (see figs. 7a-7c showing target slip calculated based on both tire characteristics (presence of tire chains) and based on current vehicle speed.) based on characteristics of a tire of the vehicle (A tyre chain detection signal is supplied to the target slip amount determining means 43 where the target slip amounts 6f, br are corrected according to the change of tyre characteristics when a tyre chain is used.) and a current driving speed of the vehicle (Fig. 7a is a diagrammatic chart showing a target slip amount of front and rear wheels versus vehicle speeds when no tyre chains are in use; Fig. 7b is a diagrammatic chart showing the target slip degree for front and rear wheels versus vehicle speeds when the vehicle has front tyre chains; Fig. 7c is a diagrammatic chart showing a target slip degree for front and rear wheels versus vehicle speeds when the vehicle has rear tyre chains [page 6]; The target slip amount is determined according to the vehicle speed as shown in Fig. 7a. That is, at low speed the target slip amount is determined to be high, considering the greater difference of wheel speed among four wheels at the tight cornering and the accuracy of the wheel speed sensor. The target slip amount is determined to be low but at the medium speed and more it becomes large in accordance with an increase of the reference vehicle speed Vr so as to render the slip rate constant. [page 12]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, and Narita to include the teachings as taught by Matsuno with a reasonable expectation of success. Matsuno highlights the deficiency in the art of “since the detection of slip and spin is performed without discriminating between front and rear wheels, the technique is still insufficient to improve the vehicle stability. Further, in this prior technique, since the way of detecting a slip is based on the detection of the angular acceleration of the wheel without using a longitudinal acceleration sensor, the accuracy of the slip detection on a slippery road is insufficient. [Matsuno, pages 3-4]”. Matsuno teaches the benefits of “to provide a traction control system for a full-time four-wheel drive vehicle with a center differential having anti-spin stability under any driving conditions by properly controlling driving force and side force. Accordingly the present invention provides a traction control system for a four-wheel drive vehicle, comprising: a brake pressure control apparatus; an engine output control apparatus; a differential limiting torque control apparatus; means for calculating a reference vehicle speed based on a lowest wheel speed and a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle; means for calculating the slip amount of each wheel based on the reference vehicle speed and speed of said wheel; means for determining a front target slip amount for the front wheels and a target slip for the rear wheels according to the reference vehicle speed; means for operating the traction control when the slip amount of the front wheels exceeds the front target slip amount or when the slip amount of the rear wheels exceeds the target slip amount and for producing a traction control signal; brake pressure calculating means responsive to the traction control signal for calculating a brake pressure corresponding to the difference between the actual slip amount and the target slip amount, for producing a brake pressure signal to the brake pressure control apparatus so as to apply braking to the wheels; and engine output calculating means provided in the control unit responsive to the traction control signal for calculating a target engine torque corresponding to the difference between the actual slip amount and the target slip amount and for producing a target engine torque signal to the engine output control apparatus. [Matsuno, pages 4-5]”.
Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita and Matsuno does not explicitly teach, however Khajepour teaches:
wherein the target wheel speed is determined based on the current driving speed of the vehicle (see eq.1 showing desired wheel speed as a result of Vc (current velocity)) and the target slip (A desired wheel velocity (ω.sub.d) is then determined based on the desired slip ratio. [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, and Matsuno to include the teachings as taught by Khajepour with a reasonable expectation of success. Khajepour teaches that “it is desirable to provide improved methods and systems for determining control commands for the actuators of the vehicle without an accurate estimation of road conditions. It is further desirable to provide methods and systems for determining the control commands using information from the vehicle corners. [Khajepour, 0005]”.
Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, Matsuno, and Khajepour doesn’t explicitly teach, however Binder teaches:
wherein the acceleration condition is determined to be satisfied (fig. 2, S4 – yes; acceleration-based monitoring function [page 2]; examiner notes that Binder is checking for a “monitoring -relevant error” in response to not detecting a torque request (i.e. acceleration from the gas pedal) by checking the previously cited conditions that indicate accelerations of the vehicle) in response to determining that a front wheel speed of the vehicle is greater than a preset reference front wheel speed (The speed of the drive motor 2 is higher than a given speed threshold[ page 4]; The gradient of the speed of the drive wheel 9 exceeds a given gradient [page 4]), driving torque of the vehicle is greater than preset reference driving torque (The engine torque of the drive motor 2 is greater than a predetermined torque threshold [page 4]), and a shift gear of the vehicle is a preset reference stage (the gear ratio is not equal to zero, ie there is a coupling between the drive motor 2 and the drive wheel 9 [page 4]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, Matsuno, and Khajepour to include the teachings as taught by Binder with a reasonable expectation of success. Hara ‘810 teaches the benefit of “The operation of engine systems in motor vehicles is critical to safety, which is why measures to monitor the proper function are provided as standard. In particular, three-level concepts are common in monitoring in which ECU functions are monitored by a torque or acceleration-based monitoring function. Thus, unwanted accelerations of a motor vehicle, as they can be caused for example by a software or hardware error in the engine control unit to be prevented. [Binder, page 2]”
Regarding claim 5:
Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, Matsuno, Khajepour, and Binder teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hara ‘810 further teaches:
wherein the slip condition is achieved in response to determining that a slip difference between the turning inner wheel and the outer wheel is greater than a preset reference slip difference (the control amount of the inner front wheel is set in response to the slip ratio deviation the between the outer front wheel (reference wheel) and the inner front wheel (i.e., difference in the slip ratio between the reference wheel and the inner front wheel) [0069]).
Regarding claim 6:
Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, Matsuno, Khajepour, and Binder teaches all the limitations of claim 5, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hara ‘810 further teaches:
wherein the turning inner wheel is determined based on a yaw rate of the vehicle (The steering angle sensor 76 detects a steering angle St. The steering angle St is “0” when the vehicle travels straight. The steering angle St has a positive value when the vehicle is turned in a left turning direction, and has a negative value when the vehicle is turned in a right turning direction. The yaw rate sensor 74 detects an actual yaw rate YR. Similar to the steering angle sensor 76, the actual yaw rate YR is “0” when the vehicle travels straight. The actual yaw rate YR has a positive value when the vehicle is turned in the left turning direction, and has a negative value when the vehicle is turned in the right turning direction. The acceleration sensor 72 detects a lateral acceleration Gy. Similar to the steering angle sensor 76, the lateral acceleration Gy is “0” when the vehicle travels straight. The lateral acceleration Gy has a positive value when the vehicle is turned in the left turning direction, and has a negative value when the vehicle is turned in the right turning direction. [0051]; The “wheel which is to be controlled to increase the anti-spin yaw moment” further includes a second wheel which is a wheel (hereinafter, simply referred to as “inner wheel”) on the inner side with respect to the turning direction of the vehicle, and is to be controlled to decrease the braking force. [0017]).
Barber further teaches:
wherein controlling of the braking pressure comprises calculating a target braking amount based on a target slip and a target wheel speed of the turning inner wheel during vehicle turning (The controller 46 may also continue regulating the actuators 70 to apply the first braking force F1 while monitoring the rotating speeds of the road wheel(s) 20A, 22A and sustained activation of the switch 48. To such an end, the controller 46 may be programmed with a look-up table 76 of rotating speeds of the road wheel(s) 20A, 22A and/or the difference between the rotating speeds of the front and rear wheels versus the first braking force F1 to thereby permit application of the first braking force in correspondence with the assessed slip at each of the road wheel(s) 20A, 22A and/or the difference between those speeds. [0043]).
Regarding claim 13:
Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, Matsuno, Khajepour, and Binder teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Seo further teaches:
wherein in response to determining that the function activation request is called off, controlling of the braking pressure is terminated (On the other hand, if the calculated wheel slip Sc is less than the wheel slip (Smap) corresponding to the lateral acceleration value as a result of the determination in the operation mode 124, the TVBB control is prohibited and prohibited (126). [page 7]).
Barber further teaches:
wherein in response to determining that the function activation request is called off, controlling of the braking pressure is terminated (the controller may be configured to apply the braking force to both first road wheels concurrently via the respective first brake assemblies when the vehicle is in motion relative to the road surface in response to the request from the switch. [0013]).
Regarding claim 14:
Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, Matsuno, Khajepour, and Binder teaches all the limitations of claim 2, upon which this claim is dependent.
Seo further teaches:
in response to determining that all of the turning condition, the acceleration condition, and the slip condition are satisfied again, controlling of the braking pressure is performed (fig. 6, step 124 to 120 shows how all three conditions need to be met to perform the control.).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (KR 20160142519), herein “Seo” in view of Barber et. al. (US 2018/0170331), herein “Barber” and Hara ‘810 et. al. (US 2020/0108810), herein “Hara ‘810”, Wu et. al. (US 2012/0280562), herein “Wu”, Narita et. al. (US 2007/0024114), herein “Narita”, Matsuno et. al. (GB 2297633), herein “Matsuno”, Khajepour et. al. (US 2017/0267232), herein “Khajepour”, and Binder et. al. (DE 102013107781 A1), herein “Binder” in further view of Custer et. al. (US 2012/0197507), herein “Custer”.
Regarding claim 3:
Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, Matsuno, Khajepour, and Binder teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, Matsuno, Khajepour, and Binder doesn’t explicitly teach, however Custer teaches:
wherein in response to determining that a steering angle of the vehicle is greater than a preset reference steering angle (and determining whether the steering angle of the vehicle 10 is above the predetermined steering angle threshold [0028]), a lateral acceleration of the vehicle is greater than a preset reference lateral acceleration (determining whether the lateral acceleration of the vehicle 10 is above the predetermined lateral acceleration threshold [0028]), and a yaw rate of the vehicle is greater than a preset reference yaw rate (determining whether the yaw rate of the vehicle 10 is above the predetermined yaw rate threshold [0028]), it is determined that the turning condition is satisfied (The steps 116, 120, and 122 of determining whether the yaw rate of the vehicle 10 is above the predetermined yaw rate threshold, determining whether the lateral acceleration of the vehicle 10 is above the predetermined lateral acceleration threshold, and determining whether the steering angle of the vehicle 10 is above the predetermined steering angle threshold, respectively, are intended to identify when the vehicle 10 is traveling in a straight path or, alternatively, when the vehicle 10 is traveling in a curved path. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, Matsuno, Khajepour, and Binder to include the teachings as taught by Custer with a reasonable expectation of success. Custer teaches the benefit of “Some adaptive control with braking (ACB) cruise control systems use pneumatic pressure from stability or traction control systems as the pressure source for braking events initiated by the ACB system. In order to reduce the chances of inducing instability (e.g., trailer swing) during braking events initiated by the ACB system on non-ideal traction surfaces or while the vehicle is in a curve, maximum estimated ACB system braking pressures are set lower than the maximum pneumatic pressures available from the stability and traction control systems. For example, maximum estimated ACB system braking pressures are set to pressures that are safe during curves (which are lower than safe braking pressures while on straight roads). In some braking events initiated by the ACB system, it is desirable to allow braking pressures above the maximum estimated ACB system braking pressures [Custer, 0002]”.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (KR 20160142519), herein “Seo” in view of Barber et. al. (US 2018/0170331), herein “Barber”, Hara et. al. (US 2020/0108810), herein “Hara ‘810” , Wu et. al. (US 2012/0280562), herein “Wu”, Matsuno et. al. (GB 2297633), herein “Matsuno”, Khajepour et. al. (US 2017/0267232), herein “Khajepour”, and Binder et. al. (DE 102013107781 A1), herein “Binder” in further view of Matsuda et. al. (US 5,269,596), herein “Matsuda”.
Regarding claim 10:
Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, Matsuno, Khajepour, and Binder teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, Matsuno, Khajepour, and Binder does not explicitly teach, however Matsuda teaches:
determining a target braking torque of the vehicle based on the determined target wheel speed and the current wheel speed (wherein when changing over the braking control mode a target velocity for the drive wheels set in the current control mode is progressively changed in one of increasing and decreasing directions so as to reach a target velocity for the drive wheels in the selected control mode. [claim 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, Matsuno, Khajepour, and Binder to include the teachings as taught by Matsuda with a reasonable expectation of success. Matsuda teaches that “it is an object of the present invention to provide a traction control method for a vehicle, wherein the changeover in control modes for the drive-wheel brake devices is effected depending on whether the driving force should be considered more or the vehicle stability should be considered more to thereby improve the driving force and the stability while maintaining the harmony therebetween. To achieve the above object, according to the present invention, an independent control mode for independently controlling the braking forces of a plurality of drive-wheel brake devices and a collective control mode for collectively controlling the braking forces of the drive-wheel brake devices are changeable from one to the other. [Matsuda, col 1, lines 46-60]”.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (KR 20160142519), herein “Seo” in view of Barber et. al. (US 2018/0170331), herein “Barber”, Hara et. al. (US 2020/0108810), herein “Hara ‘810” , Wu et. al. (US 2012/0280562), herein “Wu”, Matsuno et. al. (GB 2297633), herein “Matsuno”, Khajepour et. al. (US 2017/0267232), herein “Khajepour”, Binder et. al. (DE 102013107781 A1), herein “Binder”, and Matsuda et. al. (US 5,269,596), herein “Matsuda” in further view of Hara et. al. (US 20020180266), herein “Hara ‘266”.
Regarding claim 11:
Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, Matsuno, Khajepour, Binder, and Matsuda teaches all the limitations of claim 10, upon which this claim is dependent.
Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, Matsuno, Khajepour, and Matsuda does not explicitly teach, however Hara ‘266 teaches:
determining a target braking amount based on the target braking torque (a target regenerative braking torque is calculated on the basis of each of the target regenerative braking forces, and a signal indicating the target regenerative braking torque is transmitted from the braking control device 52 [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, Matsuno, Khajepour, Binder, and Matsuda to include the teachings as taught by Hara ‘266 with a reasonable expectation of success. Hara ‘266 teaches that “a solution to the aforementioned problem occurring in a braking control apparatus for a vehicle which has a regenerative braking device and a frictional braking device and in which anti-skid control is performed. It is a main objective of the invention to ensure that the regenerative braking force and the frictional braking force are gradually reduced and increased respectively if anti-skid control is likely to be started and to ensure that an abrupt fluctuation in deceleration of the vehicle is prevented reliably and effectively during the start of anti-skid control, while preventing the regenerative braking force from being abruptly reduced to 0 as soon as anti-skid control is started. [Hara’ 266, 0008]”.
Regarding claim 12:
Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, Matsuno, Khajepour, Binder, Matsuda, and Hara ‘266 teaches all the limitations of claim 11, upon which this claim is dependent.
Seo further teaches:
wherein a hydraulic braking amount of the turning inner wheel is adjusted based on the target braking amount (The hydraulic control unit 60 for controlling the brake pressure supplied to the wheel cylinders of the respective wheels is electrically connected to the output side of the electronic control unit 10. [page 4]), and the hydraulic braking amount is adjusted by the ESC device of the vehicle (a vehicle posture control device (Electronic Control) that improves the stability of the vehicle by controlling brake hydraulic pressure by combining ABS and TCS Stability Control (ESC). [page 2]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (KR 20160142519), herein “Seo” in view of Barber et. al. (US 2018/0170331), herein “Barber”, Hara et. al. (US 2020/0108810), herein “Hara ‘810” , Wu et. al. (US 2012/0280562), herein “Wu”, Matsuno et. al. (GB 2297633), herein “Matsuno”, Khajepour et. al. (US 2017/0267232), herein “Khajepour”, and Binder et. al. (DE 102013107781 A1), herein “Binder” in further view of Sol (US 5,043,896), herein “Sol”.
Regarding claim 15:
Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, Matsuno, Khajepour, and Binder teaches all the limitations of claim 8 (claim 1), upon which this claim is dependent.
Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, Matsuno, Khajepour, and Binder does not explicitly teach, however Sol teaches:
determining a slip error between the target slip and current slip of the inner wheel (The wheel slip error e, which is the second feedback signal, is determined by providing the driven wheel speed signal w to the wheel slip detector 18 [col 5, lines 19-22]), wherein the slip error is reflected in the target braking amount (engine feedback controller 12 and brake pressure controller 14 are shown as feedback control systems receiving inputs from, and controlling motor vehicle 16 when detected wheel slip at wheel slip detector 18 indicates that the wheel slip error and, hence, the brake pressure, are not at optimum values, as determined by external disturbances 20. Disturbance gains 22 and reference feedforward gains 24 are used to compensate for or counteract these external disturbances 20, such as variations in hill slope and road surface coefficient of friction, in a feedforward manner. In this way, the optimal vehicle brake pressure can be anticipated and controlled for any road condition by compensating for external or environmental disturbances 20. [col 3, line 62- col 4, line 7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seo in view of Barber, Hara ‘810, Wu, Narita, Matsuno, Khajepour, and Binder to include the teachings as taught by Sol with a reasonable expectation of success. Sol teaches “providing a dual feedforward/feedback system for and method of controlling vehicle braking on slippery surfaces and inclines which compensates for external or environmental disturbances. The invention allows for the optimization of longitudinal vehicle deceleration by regulating wheel spins to the optimum safe value for any road condition in accordance with road surface changes such as slippery conditions and hills. [Sol, col 1, line 64- col 2, line 4]”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujita (US 2010/0191434) discloses Several low-friction-coefficient road-surface determination devices determine whether a road surface has a low friction coefficient based on the highest and lowest wheel speeds; the wheel speeds of front and rear wheels; wheel speeds of a left-hand and right-hand driving wheels; and by comparing a reference vehicle-body acceleration calculated from a driving force of an engine with an actual vehicle-body acceleration calculated from a calculated number of revolutions of differential gears. A low-friction-coefficient road-surface total-determination device makes a total determination as to whether the road surface has a low friction coefficient based on the determination results of the low-friction-coefficient road-surface determination devices. Accordingly, each low-friction-coefficient road-surface determination device is capable of compensating for disadvantages of the other devices.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R Jagolinzer whose telephone number is (571)272-4180. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8AM - 4PM Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached at (571)272-4190. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Scott R. Jagolinzer
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/S.R.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665